Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15060
- 15079)
15060. Do you agree that applies to the entirety
of the land thus if you can do with a small outfit of land you
should not be given a compulsory power for the larger bit?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I agree
with that.
15061. So far as safeguarding which you referred
to, it is rather different, is it not, because if land is safeguarded,
the owner of the land can put in a planning application and a
planning appeal and at the appeal the matter will get argued out
and if the land is not needed he will get his planning permission
but there is an appeal procedure, safeguarding is not an absolute
control.
(Mr Berryman) It is not
an absolute control but in the last 15 years I do not think we
have lost a case on that point.
15062. Can we now please turn to Slough. Can
I ask that Crossrail's response document dealing with Slough be
put up on the screen.[107]
This is the response to EWS of a few weeks ago and looking at
the response there we say, "The site would be required to
allow the electrification and resignalling to take place".
There is no mention there, is there, of any requirement to acquire
any part of the land or take any part of the land?
(Mr Berryman) No, it is not specifically
mentioned there.
15063. You said when you were giving your evidence
"Some of the land would be required for a freight loop".
Are you at all sure that you are going to require any part of
the site for your freight loop?
(Mr Berryman) We have been
in discussion with EWS for some time about these issues, as your
client has probably told you. The issue really is whether the
particular freight route at that point adds anything in terms
of functionality to the railway for freight. EWS would be one
of the beneficiaries if it does add functionality, if it does
not we will not do it.
15064. What we cannot understand is why that
freight loop requires any part of our land. It seems to us, having
looked at the plans that it can be achieved without taking any
part of our leasehold.
(Mr Berryman) I think it
requires a very narrow strip along the edge of it.
15065. You are going to come back within six
to eight weeks time and you have known our concerns and you have
known, have you not, that we were incurring money in preparing
evidence relating to this but now you say give another six or
eight weeks and you will know more precisely what you need, is
that right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is right.
15066. At that stage, will you enter into an
agreement to acquire no more than such strip as you need?
(Mr Berryman) To acquire
it, yes, but we will also, of course, need some of the area for
access, as I think you will appreciate.
15067. So far as you need any bit of land we
are not disputing you taking it but so far as land which you will
only need for access, that is a matter which is dealt with by
a different code for compensation and differently and in the agreement
that matter would be dealt with separately?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is right.
15068. I am grateful. Coming to Langley for
a moment, you said that you were prepared to meet us on Langley.
Can I take it that so far as the land which you may need temporarily
that you will restrict yourself only to such part of the land
as you do need temporarily?
(Mr Berryman) We certainly
will, yes.
15069. I am grateful. I will not ask you about
West Drayton because we may be coming back on additional provision
three on that. So far as Southall, you have heard what Mr Smith
said today that he planned to keep some siding there? Did you
hear him when he was dealing with that matter? That deals with
your concern, does it not?
(Mr Berryman) It certainly
does and we would obviously, subject to a formal written commitment
to that, be happy to go along with that.
15070. If you safeguard that bit you will be
able to use your planning powers which you have spoken about.
The likelihood is that any planning application for houses on
a bit of land which was safeguarded simply would not receive the
consent, is that right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is right.
15071. Therefore, you do need the compulsory
power. You are seeking compulsory power over our land when your
position could be preserved simply by safeguarding it in respect
of that instance?
(Mr Berryman) In respect
of that instance it could.
15072. That is the way forward, is it not, and
indeed that is the only way forward which has complied with human
rights, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) I am not sure
about human rights but it is certainly a way forward. As long
as some satisfactory arrangement like that, or something similar
to that, is made that will be perfectly acceptable to us. I am
not sure whether it is safeguarding or some other way but something
similar to that.
15073. Coming to Hanwell, again, there you say
that you may need some land temporarily for construction purposes,
is that right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is right.
15074. Again, will the agreement provide that
you take no more land temporarily than you need and will that
be defined on a plan?
(Mr Berryman) I think that
is a general rule that you can assume for all sites, that we will
not take more than we need.
15075. I am grateful. Acton, we are grateful
for the progress there. So far as the up relief line, you say,
"We will look at it," but you have known about the problem
since last March, have you not, when your Mr Devereaux told us
that there was a problem with freight at that point?
(Mr Berryman) He told you
that the freight would not be able to use the dive under because
it is too steep. There are, as you probably know, alternative
routes to get further into London for freight, but certainly I
will look again at that issue of maintaining the surface level
relief line.
15076. This is very important, is it not? Mr
Smith gave evidence about the difficulties of freight, unless
this up relief line was built. I think there is no dispute between
you about its importance as such?
(Mr Berryman) It would be
a useful link. As I said a moment ago, there are other ways round,
but it would certainly be a useful link.
15077. Paddington New Yard, you said this is
a place where there will be a period where access by rail will
be interrupted and you would envisage aggregates coming in by
road, do you remember that?
(Mr Berryman) I do remember
that.
15078. I do not think that matter is anywhere
referred to in the Environmental Statement, is it?
(Mr Berryman) It is not.
I think I am right in saying the Environmental Statement talks
about the batching plant being closed and we have brought forward
already a P2 which covers some additional land which we require
in that area.
15079. That is going to have its own environmental
statement, is it?
(Mr Berryman) I believe
it already has.
107 Crossrail Ref: P111, Slough-Alternative Locations,
Location of works (other sites)- Justification of land required,
unable to relocate (SCN-20060711-020). Back
| 
